- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:58:26 -0400
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Thomas Lord" <lord@emf.net>, "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
Would the name EOT-Neue or something similar alleviate your concern? Support for a new version of something doesn't imply any obligation to support older one. Vlad > -----Original Message----- > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Håkon Wium Lie > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:35 PM > To: Tab Atkins Jr. > Cc: Håkon Wium Lie; Thomas Lord; Thomas Phinney; John Hudson; www- > font@w3.org > Subject: Re: EOT & DMCA concerns > > Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.: > > > > This is a real concern. By accepting EOTL (and not EOTC) browser > > > vendors accept to ship an inferior product. > > > > Only in the sense that you are currently shipping an inferior > product, > > and will continue to do so. I don't think Opera considers itself > > inferior for not shipping EOT. > > Things change if you start supporting a "lite" version of a standards. > People will expect you to soon start supporting the "full" standard. > > > > Microsoft marketing would > > > quickly claim that only they "fully support EOT". > > > > That's claimable *right now*. > > Again, the comparison changes if competitors start supporting the > "lite" version, thereby seemingly acknowleding that the standard is > a good idea. > > I don't think "EOT Lite" is such a good idea. I don't *any* standard > should have the word "lite" in it: > > We begin with the name. The members of the Rapporteur Group strongly > prefer "DSSSL Core" over "DSSSL Lite" as the name of the mandatory > subset of DSSSL, for two reasons. First, "Lite" is the well-known > name of a particularly insipid brand of beer; and second, the term > "DSSSL Lite" suggests incorrectly that what is being referred to is a > standard parallel to and separate from DSSSL itself. This discussion > is not about the establishment of a separate standard but rather > about > the definition of a conformance level of DSSSL. > > http://xml.coverpages.org/dssslCore1.txt > > Cheers, > > -h&kon > Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª > howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:59:06 UTC